TexasCHLforum.com

Backfire wrote:Yes there it is - very Good thanks. Senate Bill 378 a "Stand Your Ground" clause. So how about that. Interesting. Still at all costs right people? Avoid a jury in determining reasonableness to use deadly force. If you make every attempt as was described in scenario 2 -to avoid deadly force. But i thank you for the information - this helps.

Of course. You won't find too many or anyone here that would be so willing to take another's life without there being justification or it being the last or "only" choice. We just don't have to worry about it so much any more.

Backfire wrote:There is no stand your ground deal in texas. I will review the laws, but thought there was a retreat when possible aspect - when it does not place you in a worse situation. The travon Martin deal had the stand your ground deal.

Yes there is. It's called the Castle Law here and I can't remember the number. It basically says that I do not have to retreat as long as I am somewhere I legally have a right to be. Also, IIRC, even before this law was passed we did not have a duty to retreat from our own homes like some other states. This law expanded that right beyond the walls of our homes.

Backfire wrote: In texas there is a retreat when possible aspect in the use the deadly force.

Not any more.

FastCarry wrote:

C-dub wrote:The very first CHL shooting in Texas was a little guy getting pounded on by a big guy. The little guy was able to get his gun and shoot and kill the big guy and he was "no billed."

When there is a disparity of force (multiple attackers against one, young against old, or big against little) we are justified in pulling our weapon out whether we use it or not. If you are in fear for your life you are justified in using deadly force. In this situation, I'm not sure if you would be justified in pulling your gun out before the guy started pounding on you, but if he did start pounding on you and you feared for your life then you're good to go.

IIRC, the decision on this case was due to repeated strikes to the head. From what was discussed in my class, if youre being pounded on, with fists, and not in the head, that isnt enough to justify deadly force. The way I see it, if myself or someone near by is facing imminent fatality, im using my weapon. Property can be replaced, although justified, im not equating material possessions to a man's life(unless ofcourse its in my home, or aggravated robbery, that threat includes property but also physical danger).

I don't understand the difference or think there is one. Being hit in the head or facing broken ribs, ruptured spleen liver or kidneys can be just as deadly. It's just like the Martin-Zimmerman thing down in Florida. Now that the doctor's report has come out and said that Zimmerman's head had all this damage on it, but he wasn't taken to the hospital it must not have been serious enough for him to be in fear for his life. Do we all have to be ER doctors now and be able to discern a few cuts and bruises from serious bodily injury? Can't I just be in fear for my life if someone is administering a beat down on me? Now, I'm not a little guy, but I am getting older. If someone is beating on me it's because they are much more capable than I am or they sucker punched me, which puts me at a severe disadvantage.

We talk a lot about LEOs shooting dogs. The argument boils down to why should anyone have to suffer a bite before they can shoot. Many police departments will argue this point as a legitimate reason for their officers' actions, so how long must I take a beating or just how serious do I have to be injured before I can shoot? I am not advocating shooting a person that is threatening me before they actually hit me, but that's what many police department policy's are when it comes to dogs. What really is the difference? I know there is one, but I'm not sure I know what it is.

The very first CHL shooting in Texas was a little guy getting pounded on by a big guy. The little guy was able to get his gun and shoot and kill the big guy and he was "no billed."

When there is a disparity of force (multiple attackers against one, young against old, or big against little) we are justified in pulling our weapon out whether we use it or not. If you are in fear for your life you are justified in using deadly force. In this situation, I'm not sure if you would be justified in pulling your gun out before the guy started pounding on you, but if he did start pounding on you and you feared for your life then you're good to go.